The global warming science facts can often be so brutal for the climate-doomsday-from-CO2 alarmists >>> the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has determined that Asian pollution will warm the globe so much that it offsets any U.S. CO2 emission reductions

Read here. China and other Asian countries produce a lot of black carbon (soot) and other pollutants that are belched into the atmosphere in prodigious quantities. The scientists at NCAR utilized their global climate models to analyze the impact of all that filth on global temps.

The impact of these pollutants will be quite high: a +0.4°C increase of summer temps over the entire U.S. This warming happens regardless of any U.S. reductions in CO2 emissions. And to drive home this point, climate models indicate that if the U.S. were to reduce its emissions by 80% the impact on U.S. temps would be a measly 0.075°C reduction - the Asian pollutant warming overwhelms the reduction due to less CO2.

"Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions."

The global warming science facts conclusions: Any attempt by the U.S. to massively reduce its CO2 emissions will be a total waste of money and effort as Asian pollution will easily offset that attempt. This NCAR analysis is eye-opening and should be seriously considered by America's policymakers. But it should be remembered that this analysis is based on global climate models, which have been incredibly ineffectual at predicting temperatures, let alone climate conditions across the world or in specific regions. And it should be pointed out that U.S. temperatures over the last 15 years have been on a cooling trend of minus 2 degrees (F) per century through April 2012 - for some reason, all those past Asian pollutants have not warmed the U.S.

Both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi wanted to force the U.S. economy to a regulated 'cap and trade' straitjacket policy for CO2 emissions. This was the failed scheme that Australia and the EU actively pursued, and the U.S Democrats wanted to mimic.

The American public, and most Republicans, wanted nothing to do with 'cap & trade' straitjacket regulations, but instead desired a free market approach to reducing CO2 emissions.

And, as it now turns out, the American public and Republicans were a lot smarter than Obama, Pelosi and the incredibly dull leaders of Australia and the EU. Since 2006, the U.S. has led the world in reducing CO2 emissions and did it without bureaucratic mandates that politicians across the globe love.

Conclusion: The amazing and flexible free market in the U.S. has been responsible for the impressive and global-leading CO2 reductions, not the U.S. government and its stifling bureaucracy.

Hey, with that said about the wrong-way Democrats, Nancy sure does look great though, eh?

Read here. Wikileaks, the organization dedicated to exposing the dark underbelly of big government, has published documents regarding the UN's climate program known as the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM). In essence, the program has been an abject failure bordering on flagrant corruption.

"What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says."

Obviously, the CDM program had two principal functions, neither of which concerned a better environment. The first was to enhance the investment profitability of wealthy "green" investors; the second being a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers of advanced countries to countries incapable of producing their own prosperity without some form of subsidized theft.

The entire climate change endeavor sponsored by the United Nations is essentially a gigantic fraud, propelled by leftists and greens dedicated to no growth, no prosperity policies. The actual quotes from "elites" who support the UN's "green" policies confirms everything that Wikileaks is now discovering.

Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Most 'cool dudes' (aka skeptics) have long held the opinion that 'cap & trade' CO2 emission mechanisms are worthless, with the sole exception being for those wealthy individuals and crony capitalists who stand to hugely enrich themselves (Gore, Soros, GE, Duke Energy, Exelon, etc.). Almost all green groups and climate alarmists sided with the self-interested as the 'cap & trade' legislation was being fought out in Congress. Not any more, though.

Since Federal 'cap & trade' legislation is going nowhere soon, some states, like California, are pursuing their own moronic 'cap & trade' policies. But now the California environmentalists are fighting that state's 'cap & trade' implementation using the same arguments that the skeptics (and one single anti-CO2 fanatic named Hansen) were using during the fight over the Federal legislation.

“The fraudulence of … ‘goals’ for emission reductions, ‘offsets’ that render even iron-clad goals almost meaningless, an ineffectual ‘cap-and-trade’ mechanism must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics-as-usual.” - James Hansen, “Never-Give-Up Fighting Spirit,” November 30, 2009

“The truth is, the climate course set by [the] Waxman-Markey [cap-and-trade bill] is a disaster course. It is an exceedingly inefficient way to get a small reduction of emissions. It is less than worthless….” -James Hansen, “Strategies to Address Global Warming,” July 13, 2009.

Read here, here, here, here, and here. Democrats and the Obama administration will attempt just about every falsehood and any misrepresentation in efforts to pass some form of the global warming, cap and trade, energy legislation. As long as the mainstream media refuses to do any fact checking, the global warming B.S. will continue.

A recent example of the propensity to mislead and falsely claim is the Democrat's web site pushing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation. On that site, they misleadingly state what global warming is supposedly doing to areas of the world, including the Northeast region of the U.S.:

"If the current rate of heat-trapping emissions continues, by 2070 summers in Boston will feel like those of South Carolina today. By the end of the century, temperatures could rise up to 14 degrees Fahrenheit in the region. Cities across New England, which historically experience only one or two days per year above 100 degrees each summer, could average 20 such days per summer, while more southern cities such as Hartford could average nearly 30 days. The character of the seasons will change significantly. Spring could arrive three weeks earlier, with summer lengthening by about three weeks, autumn becoming warmer and drier, and winter becoming shorter and milder."

Okay, based on actual empirical evidence, are any of the above GW claims likely to happen within the next 60 to 100 years. In a word, NO. The linked postings above clearly document the global warming lies (or, if you prefer, the wildly speculative, irresponsible predictions
with no basis in reality) on the Democrat's site. An example is the statement that the Northeast region's temperatures may rise 14 degrees by 2100. That claim is so outlandishly bogus it becomes synonymous with an outright lie.

In a further examination of the data, the charts below show the impact of the huge amounts of global CO2 emissions on U.S. Northeast regional summer and winter temperatures since 1895. How big was that impact? Well, as the charts depict, just about squat. And whatever squat Northeast warming has occurred is most likely explained by a combination of natural forces and land-use forcings, not human CO2 emissions. And by the way, note both charts reveal 10-year average temperatures (red curve) being higher prior to the 1970's.

Why do politicians get away with the bullstuff lying like this? Easy. One, because the mainstream media isn't doing their job; and two, the politicians have basically bought the silence of the majority of climate scientists - one can't bite Uncle Sugar Daddy's hand and expect to prosper. (click on images to enlarge)

That's a lot to read but represents only a small portion of the articles written about "green" corruption, especially regarding activities involved with cap and trade schemes. The cap and trade dollar potential is gigantic, and as it turns out, can easily be leveraged and manipulated with a variety of corrupt tactics.

What do organized crime, Goldman Sachs, Gore, and Soros all have in common? If you think it's their desiring a better planet, you've definitely got your head up your arse with blinkers on.

If you prefer viewing instead of reading, take the time to watch these videos about what 'cap and trade' is really about.

The cap and trade (energy bill) legislation sponsored by Sens. Kerry, Boxer, Lieberman and L. Graham, that is currently stalled in the Senate, proposes that the U.S. enforce CO2 reductions of 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, based on year 2005's emissions. As the red line on the above chart portrays, U.S. emissions continue to contribute to global warming, despite the 83% cut by 2050. The simple facts are, the U.S. emissions will always increase temperatures unless they are cut to absolute zero.

Of more interest, is the incredibly tiny impact the cutting 83% of U.S. emissions has. One would think, based on all the global warming anti-CO2 propaganda, that a huge cut in emissions would have a significant and worthwhile impact - it ain't so, though.

The chart's black line represents the global temperature increase of 0.26°C by 2100 if the U.S. allowed emissions to remain at the 2008 level (since 2003, U.S. annual emissions have been essentially flat, with no CO2 regulations). The red line represents the combined impact of the 17% and 83% emissions cut, which by 2100, the temperature increase would be 0.099°C. For the subtraction challenged, that's a ludicrously small difference of about 0.17 degrees between a "do nothing" strategy versus an all out war on U.S. CO2 emissions strategy.

And, if one beleives the IPCC and its climate models (C3 doesn't), the global temperature could increase some 8°C by 2100 anyways, as depicted on the top of the chart. If that's the case, a 0.17 degree difference is what accountants would call grossly "immaterial."

Now that we know what an 83% CO2 cut means, what would this Democratic, Al Gore-type profiteering, environmental jihadists' war on CO2 cost Americans? Forcing America to cut emissions by 83% would cost Americans from $2.5 to $4.5 trillion in new energy taxes, and the potential economic losses would range from $5 to $10 trillion, depending on which study one believes. With the known outcome to be only a tiny reduction of 17 one-hundredths of a degree, versus a zero dollar cost of doing nothing that produces similar results, the enactment of such CO2 reduction legislation could best be summarized in one word: insanity.

Note: The above analysis results are similar to those generated by a climate model, as described in this masterful article. How does our above analysis differ? We did it the old fashioned way, by simply using historical CO2 emissions data and past temperature data as inputs to an Excel spreadsheet with some formulas.

Here are the key assumptions and data to do your own back-of-the-envelope calculations:

1. IPCC global warming science claims human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years (not likely, but we'll assume it for this analysis).

2. IPCC global warming science claims that all warming since WWII is the result of human CO2 emissions (not likely, but we'll it assume for this analysis).

3. Since January 1, 1960, approximately 1 trillion tons of human CO2 have been emitted, globally.

4. Since January 1, 1960, global temperatures have increased by approximately 0.50°C.

5. Based on this 50 year experience and its data, this means that a single ton of human CO2 emitted causes a global temperature increase of approximately 0.00000000000050°C.

Read here. The U.S. free market approach to energy efficiency does a superior job at reducing CO2 emissions than the 'cap n' trade', heavily regulated, Kyoto-style approach favored by the EU, the UN, and of course, the enlightened, big tax/big govt, Obama regime.

Despite the better results achieved by the U.S. approach, Obama and his academic accomplices want to make it even more painful - $7 to $9.00 per gallon gas - for U.S. consumers, so we can all be like those inefficient, wasteful, polluting, hypocritical EU'ers. (click image to enlarge)

Read here. Well, only a few days before Massachusetts voters made it clear to everyone that more big government is not the solution, George Soros, the leftist billionaire, was asking for U.S. government guarantees for his energy investments. In this case, a new, big government law enforcing 'cap & trade' policies would be all the guarantee he needs to make his energy investments a winner. This policy would force a lot of American consumer and business dollars to flow into the Soros' owned 'cap & trade' energy solutions. And, by golly, he would even donate $100 million to an environmental policy group to help enforce the regulations - how thoughtful.

Apparently, the Obama administration has bought into the chutzpah of the leftist-speculator-criminal and is considering pushing 'cap & trade', again. Gee, I wonder why Obama would do that? Goodluck with that, guys. We'll be waiting at the ballot box if you try.

Read here. It's not only the unions that are knocking California for a loop. During 2006, California decided to pass its infamous CO2 emissions regulations, which has surely kept existing California business from expanding and new businesses being California-based. Instead, businesses are moving to Neveda and Texas to avoid the massive regulation cost and burden California imposed. With the draconian CO2 measures that literally will have no impact on global temperatures, why would any company stay in California.

"The law all but encourages outsourcing to Nevada, Texas, China and
India. Even the liberal Sacramento Bee, which supports the law, says
that policy makers should be "candid about the real costs of the
transition it is contemplating. . . . Industries that are
energy-intensive will move elsewhere....Meanwhile, a new study commissioned by
the Governor's Office of Small Business Advocacy estimates that the
direct cost of current California regulation is $175 billion, or nearly
twice the size of the state general fund budget and about $134,000 per
small business each year"

Read here, here and here. Most people, on every side of the AGW debate, would agree that chopping down a rain or boreal forest to promote development of renewable fuels is an extremely bad idea in terms of earth's climate. Unfortunately, the failure of Copenhagen also keeps these forests at risk because of the previous idiotic legislation/regulations previously agreed upon or promoted (Kyoto, cap & trade, U.S. renewable energy schemes, etc.).

Because of the Climategate scientists fraudulent science, and their propaganda of imminent world catastrophes if nothing was done about CO2 emissions immediately, it caused all the focus to be on a questionable, nebulous problem with an impossible political/economic solution, instead of actually focusing on real world climate and environment problems that could be solved. Climategate lies cause trees to die.

Read here. Back in March of 2009, 100+ prominent scientists sent Obama a letter that countered the claims being made by the Climategate scientists. The claims based on the AGW hypothesis were being proven wrong by the actual data and the letter writers went out of their way to provide a fair and accurate warning of the problems with the AGW claims/predictions.

They had identified a "scientific" house-of-cards and stepped up to do the right thing. Unfortunately, neither Obama, nor the "expert" sycophants advising him (the leftist-liberals drooling over new 'cap & trade' revenue streams), listened. At that time Obama could have demanded more and better scientific evidence than just more hype and hysteria. Instead, he ignored the actual science and now the climate science fraud revealed by Climategate has blown up in his face on the eve of Copenhagen. Certainly not the best-of-breed leadership qualities that's needed in today's world.

Read here. The world does not need another great wealth producing country joining the anti-CO2, cult-science realm, especially with daily revelations that the IPCC has lied and its scientists committed scientific fraud. Australians should not be burying their liberties and economic freedoms based on the bogus science of global warming and hysterical hype of the mainstream press. (image source)

Read here. The naïve and easily-fooled (journalists/pundits?) eat up this type of anti-CO2, green-preening corporate public relations propaganda. Realistically though, the only means for a corporation to be truly carbon neutral is to go out of business - there just is no other way to reach zero CO2 emissions. Buying carbon offsets does not reduce a company's actual CO2 emissions. Here's a company that no longer buys into the green, window-dressing PR either.

Read here. It seems that the brilliant, sage legislator and orator, Democrat John Kerry,
has somehow managed to convince a major Republican to throw him a life
preserver as Boxer/Kerry's global warming 'cap & trade' legislation was
drowning a deservedly slow death. As more UN-IPCC scientists are bailing.....

Read here. The world's expert climate-change economists estimate that the costs associated with reducing CO2 emissions will be multiple times higher than the actual CO2 reduction benefits. If the negative impact on global trade is also included, the costs will likely double. Unfortunately, many U.S. politicians (especially the majority of Democrats and the Obama administration) want to throw money down what is a known huge rat hole for very unsound economic and climatic reasons. (click image to enlarge)

Read here. Our global civilization is conducting an unprecedented, unplanned experiment (major global recession) in reducing human CO2 emissions, and it's not having much impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. During 2008, growth of CO2 emissions was slashed by half. For 2009, emissions will be reduced by a considerable 2.5%. Yet, as the above graph shows,......

Read here. Let there be no doubt, radical environmentalists rule the Obama administration. Obama and his minions will conveniently sacrifice communities, families and jobs to achieve their goals, even over a tiny fish. The Democrats 'Cap & Trade' legislation will result in the same type of social, economic devastation that this agriculture area has suffered at the hands of green fanatics.

Read here and here. If Waxman-Markey 'Cap & Trade' passes Senate, individual taxpayers (yes, you and me) will be involuntarily transferring our wealth to corporations (Duke Energy, GE, etc.) and special interests (i.e., foreign countries, community organizations and environmental groups) so they are properly "incentivized" to support the plan. (click to enlarge image)

Read here. Leftist Democrat politicians are pushing "climate change" legislation, such as Waxman-Markey, that will accomplish nothing in regards to global warming and climate change but will definitely impose a multi-trillion tax on the U.S economy and consumers. Click to enlarge to see what climate models estimate, and what almost 100% of scientific community knows and won't deny:

A dangerous climate and economic experiment by Democrats: In 2004,
Americans emitted 20.4 metric tons of CO2 per person. Democrats want to
slash that by 80% by passing their 'cap and trade' legislation. While
China, India, Russia and Brazil keep growing by using cheap fossil
fuels to become world economic giants, Democrats, and their radical
(lunatic?) environmental supporters, want to drive U.S. citizens back
to the proverbial economic stone age (click to enlarge).x

Read here, and as we suggested here a few weeks ago. Any politician who would vote for radical environmentalist legislation that would cripple the American economy, while literally doing absolutely nothing to reduce "global warming" should be kept away from sharp objects for their own self-protection.

Read here and here. There seems to be a 100% consensus that CO2 'Cap & Trade' policies will create a new environment of excessive corruption and crime, as government officials are already laying plans to expand law enforcement into daily operations of businesses. Since the "War on Drugs" has created a criminal environment that has wreaked havoc on innocents worldwide, why would politicians enact more "War" legislation that would do the same?

Read here. Despite the scientific evidence that the globe has been cooling (land, atmosphere and oceans) over the last 10+ years, Obama chooses to publish his first "science" report void of any recent, real-world climate science. Instead, his administration hires a PR firm to embellish the past scaremongering generated exclusively from virtual climate computer models. Unfortunately for real science and America, he has sided with the pseudo science of "virtual lies" and hysterical climate claims in order to get his badly needed revenue-generation engine, 'Cap & Trade,' passed in Congress.

Read here. Companies that are avid supporters of 'cap & trade,' such as Duke Energy (see list), do not care about the climate, they just want to assure they can pass 100% of all global warming legislation costs onto the consumer. We've written about this before here, here, here and here.

Previously, we said $650 billion was too low and more likely to be $3 trillion. We are now estimating that within 12 months, the expected cost of Obama's climate plans will climb to $5 trillion, $43,000 per U.S. household.